zlacker

>>sn_mas+(OP)
Is there a definition of what it means to be white (or any other color for that matter)?

EDIT: to the down voters - this is a serious question. First we need to know what DiAngelo means with being white.

The statement 'be less white' implies that all white learners of her course exhibit some negative traits.

What are those negative aspects?

How else can you change if you don't know what you're doing wrong in her eyes?

>>uxcolu+zm
One of the big problems with this entire conversation is the definition of terms. The word “white” has been defined hundreds of ways within the “woke” literature and multicultural academics - some of them having no connection to skin color. The nuance and depth of thought that has gone into these academic discussions is elided and you end up with “be less white” which is clearly and obviously inflammatory to a whole host of people. That nobody ever defines terms clearly causes everyone to talk past each other and the conversation becomes immediately divisive and counterproductive. There is a real conversation to be had here - but we’re not having it.

>>germin+mw
You're correct, but I think you're missing that this is done intentionally. I've heard it referred to as "humpty-dumpying", referring to the character is Through the Looking-Glass:

> "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

It's equivocating and a preemptive setup for a Motte and Bailey. You can then say blatantly racist things like "be less white", the Bailey, and when called on it, retreat to "oh well when I say white I don't mean white, I mean <some tortured definition>", which is the Motte.

If it weren't intentional there would be very little reason to recycle words that already have established meanings and use them to mean something that doesn't explain the meaning with nuance, but supposedly changes it entirely.

>>seneca+2C
To give some balance, we do that too as computer people. The question "what is a computer" has increasingly refined and sometimes contradictory answers.

To the layperson, it's a box that can run software and probably had blinking lights, and that's good enough. Ask an engineer, they'll talk about RAM and CPUs. Ask computer scientists, and they'll talk about Turing completeness. Or even say something seemingly contradictory to an outsider, like "computer science isn't about computers". And even among experts, you'll get disagreements for things like "is a calculator a computer? An FPGA? An abacus?"